masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:ME1 and ME2
__TOC__ Note: This discussion covers general issues related to splitting articles to separate Mass Effect content from Mass Effect 2 content. Discussion related to specific pages should still be carried out on the relevant article talk page. Has anyone noticed that ME1 and ME2 information is all on the same page? Does anyone agree with me that this is not the right way to do things? They are separate games, there for they should be separated to different pages. Polexian[[User_talk:Polexian| ♦♦Talk♦♦]][http://dragonage.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Polexian&action=edit&section=new ♠♠Leave Message♠♠] 11:20, February 4, 2010 (UTC) I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. Something that many people may not know is that we've actually had multiple sources for quite a while now, seeing as how there were two books and another game released well before Mass Effect 2 came along. And we seem to be getting along pretty well merging the info from different sources (for an example, check out Storyline which merges details from Mass Effect: Revelation and Mass Effect) so I'm perfectly happy with the current system. If it's something that is substantially different between the two games I'd be inclined to support a "separate articles" plan, but for things like Characters it just doesn't make sense. You talk about separating Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, but what about the other games and books? Where would their info go? Should we have separate pages containing the same information for Mass Effect, Mass Effect: Revelation, Mass Effect: Ascension, Mass Effect: Galaxy, Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect: Redemption and Mass Effect: Retribution? You have to remember, it's much more than just two games worth of info. It's 3 games, 3 books, and a comic book series, with at least one more game (and likely other print material) on the way. It's just not feasible to split it all up like that. SpartHawg948 12:10, February 4, 2010 (UTC) You don't have to have separate pages for each, but we have to think for the future. You can have the same pages list the same information by using includes so that one page has the original information and the others just read it from there. Mass effect 1 and 2 galaxies are totally different, why wouldn't we have a different page for each, mass effect 1 and 2 planets are totally different.... ME1 and 2 Achievements are different. Would you rather look at one page that has the achievements for the game you are playing or do you want to look at a page with 100+ achievements on it. We need to start separating the content now with the games and then do the same for the books and other games. If it is done right, it will look very professional and make this wiki more popular. I started masseffect2.wikia.com and I had Joeplay forward it here because I hoped there would be inteligent people here that knew how to organize a wiki. Right now it is a bunch of article thrown into a room, and I want to help make this a well organized filing cabinet. Polexian[[User_talk:Polexian| ♦♦Talk♦♦]][http://dragonage.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Polexian&action=edit&section=new ♠♠Leave Message♠♠] 12:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC) I would say that it is a question to be solved on a "case by case" basis. For instance, I think it might be beneficial to split some pages like Missions or Assignments, as there cannot exist such thing as a common mission or assignment for the two games and the common pages tend to become quite long and difficult to read. It is already the case for the Guide pages, which are separated. At the contrary, as SpartHawg948 pointed out, in many cases, when background information is involved, it makes perfect sense holding all the information on one subject, whatever the source can be, in one page. for instance, having all information on Medi-gel, or any persistent technology, allows to present evolution of its use, having all information on a character allows to have an historical perspective. --Celorilm 12:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC) Regarding the galaxy, you are wrong, it actually is the same galaxy, the Milky Way , with common elements: Citadel, Local Cluster (Earth, ...), ... Celorilm 12:40, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :What about the planets that you can visit in both games, like Earth and Pluto? Should the scanning info and picture from ME2 be on the same page, or should we split up the page in two? Spoo12 12:42, February 4, 2010 (UTC) My answer would definitely be "on the same page", as these are the same planets, even real ones!! Screenshots of ME1 o ME2 are just two different pictures representing the same objects :). Celorilm 12:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :You know, flattery will get you nowhere! With comments like "I hoped there would be inteligent people here that knew how to organize a wiki." and "Right now it is a bunch of article thrown into a room", I can't see why we aren't just falling over ourselves to comply! :P I agree that some pages (including the Achievements page) should be split, but not all the pages you listed. The galaxy is the same between the two games. There is considerable overlap. Planets aren't really different either. Planetary exploration, maybe, but not planets. But again, you can't just say there need to be separate ME and ME2 pages (no such thing as ME1 or Mass Effect 1! :P) without also admitting that it must therefor be necessary to have differentiated pages for the other 5 works in the franchise. And many pages such as Characters, Races, and pages concerning the Galaxy, planets, systems, etc. have considerable overlap, making splitting them impractical. As for professional-looking, I think we do all right. We were featured in GameInformer magazine after all. Not too bad for "a bunch of article thrown into a room"! :) SpartHawg948 12:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC) Ok SpartHawg948 since you think we should split some pages then let's list them here and see what everyone else thinks. :Achievements :Characters Anymore need to be added SpartHawg948? Thrown into a room, just saying this could be better organized. Polexian[[User_talk:Polexian| ♦♦Talk♦♦]][http://dragonage.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Polexian&action=edit&section=new ♠♠Leave Message♠♠] 15:13, February 4, 2010 (UTC) I have split the achievements up to be listed on two different pages, but when people go there, they are all there because I included them which includes that page on the achievements page and at the top it will send them to that page if they want to see them alone. Polexian[[User_talk:Polexian| ♦♦Talk♦♦]][http://dragonage.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Polexian&action=edit&section=new ♠♠Leave Message♠♠] 15:23, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :Ok, as you asked for a direct response to splitting two pages, here's my take. Achievements- As I've already said, sure! Go ahead and divide it up by ME and ME2. Makes sense. Characters- Again, as I've already said, No Way! Too much overlap between ME and ME2 characters, plus, it's not just ME and ME2 characters on the Characters page! It's also characters from ME: Galaxy, ME: Revelation, ME: Ascension, ME: Retribution, and ME: Redemption. If we split the page purely along ME and ME2 lines, where would all those characters go? I've asked this before and have yet to see a good answer, or any answer, really. SpartHawg948 22:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC) ::(FWIW it looks like Polexian has ragequit.) --DRY 23:05, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Indeed it does. Oh well. SpartHawg948 04:52, February 5, 2010 (UTC) Disagree. I don't think separating the wiki by game is a good idea at all. We will end up with having dozens of pages essentially covering the same thing. Are you honestly thinking we'd have separate pages for the same character in different games i.e. Ashley (ME), Ashley (ME2), Ashley (ME Whatever)? That would swiftly make the wiki completely saturated with tiny pages when they could be simply (and common-sensically) integrated into one. Having all information (within reason) on the same pages also makes it easier for casual users to find it. If they're looking for info on Liara T'Soni, it's obvious to have all the detail relating to her on that page. We are not going to end up having a Mass Effect Wiki and a Mass Effect 2 Wiki in the same Wikia space. You edit the DA Wiki: they don't effectively need several wikis to handle the books, Origins and whatever happens with Awakening. That said, I agree with the statement above that it makes sense to have separate pages for ME2 assignments, and possibly for achievements, because those pages are pretty long and people may be inclined to look for ME2 assignments, not just assignments. But when it comes to characters, planets, plot--no. The wiki is more holistic than that. As SpartHawg said, we've been handling several sources for a while now and not had any problem at all. While for organisational and search reasons ME2 achievement, mission and assignment pages may be more tenable, we also have categories for all this information and a search bar. While your idea does highlight that we could use a few dedicated ME2 pages, this seems to be a personal preference issue rather than an actual deep-seated problem with the wiki's organisation. --Tullis 15:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC) While I'm sure many readers would prefer the wiki to be separated, I am compelled to say that I do not agree, for it would make things unnecessarily more complicated. --Fiery Phoenix 21:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC) Careful consideration There are also practical issues to consider: overlapping content potentially maintained in two places; navigation correctness and consistency; category correctness and consistency; page nesting and click count; retaining compatibility with incoming anchor links — just to name a few. (Mediawiki anchor links are always problematic since they break silently rather than red-line. I certainly don't really want to be the one who has to hunt through all of the content fixing them.) At the mechanical level, the naming convention should also be considered: Mediawiki has some inherent support for parenthesized page suffixes which it would make sense to leverage; whether to split or parameterise templates; whether or not to use transclusion for common elements; whether or not to make use of DPL. These are just some of the sorts of real-world issues that intelligent maintainers need to consider before such a major project is undertaken. This is why we're maintaining sectioned pages until things stabilize a bit and there's time to analyze the situation as a coherent whole. Additionally, while a Forum thread is perhaps a reasonable place to discuss cross-page issues, the pages involved should have their talk pages updated with a link to here. My experience is that very few contributors bother to watch the forum (myself included). In general, I've been asking that contributors discuss major changes on talk pages before starting work, not as policy but just as a matter of courtesy to the community. Note that, in this case, there are already at least three major contributors to ME1/ME2 overlap resolution so some sort of coordination would be wise. --DRY 15:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC) For Myself I would say that while say Assignments/Missions "Should" be separate. I would not make two Galactic Maps, BUT I would put in the system header a tag for the game it is visited in if it is unique to one game. Same with Characters, Equipment Ect.. label it right on the index as ME1/ME2 or Shared. For what it's worth, I think the most sensible approach would be to split pages on a case-by-case basis, but a good basic guideline might be to split gameplay-oriented pages (e.g. pages on equipment and powers/talents), and combine story-oriented pages (e.g. characters that appear in multiple games/stories such as Liara or Jacob). Some pages will call for special treatment, such as location pages, which can be considered both story and gameplay, and probably make more sense combined, but I think this would be a good rule of thumb. --Diyartifact 05:39, February 8, 2010 (UTC) The case-by-case basis would work for a time but eventually some articles would get so long especially when Mass Effect 3 comes out in a few years. Some articles like weapons should be split into ME1 and ME2 pages, but characters should remain as a single page for an example. My opinion is that anything unique to each game like achievements and weapons need to be seperated. Lancer1289 06:15 February 8, 2010 (UTC) Split naming In order to minimize the amount of needless labour, I strongly suggest that if a page is split for its ME2 content, that the original page remain with a disambiguation at the top pointing to a page of the form } (ME2). This has the dual advantages of ensuring that existing context-sensitve and anchor links to ME1 content remain reasonable while also splitting the ME2 content to a name which is consistent with the Mediawiki variant naming support. --DRY 18:33, February 4, 2010 (UTC) I'm all for this one. DM Khalas 19:12, February 4, 2010 (UTC) I support this as well. Matt 2108 19:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds very sensible. --Tullis 19:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC) (Reset indent) I suggest that we let it soak for twenty-four hours or so to get feedback from other time zones and then anyone who wants to go ahead and split a particular page should feel free to go ahead along the lines mentioned above. Splitting the planets, systems, and clusters is a bit more complicated but by no means difficult. We should also decide if we want three nav bars, or one which takes a parameter — there are pros and cons both ways, but I suspect that either would do just fine. --DRY 20:38, February 4, 2010 (UTC) What about not necessarily splitting the info, but instead having the Galaxy Map highlighted in sections or have the planets circled in different colors according to game? or have it split to where if you click on the SE portion of Galaxy, it will take you to ME1 where if you click on NW area, it will take you to ME2. If possible, keep the history/lore of planets combined in case people just want to read on backstory parts, but have either headers for different colored text for distinguishing between games (Light Blue/Red, or Paragon/Renegade symbols or something like that). --XCOMspi XCOMspi 13:20, February 6, 2010 (UTC) Equipment is partially split Submachine Guns and Heavy Pistols are Mass Effect 2 only and neither is likely to be integrated anywhere else. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns and armor pages all possess both ME1 and ME2 information, however, these articles are quite long and probably better off split up. : The articles mentioned have gotten very long and most fo the information is Mass Effect 1 info. True. If someone is looking about information of weapons in ME2, from the front page they select "Weapons". They are linked to Equipment#Weaponry article. There they will need to select the category, lets say Pistols. They are now on a page, about Mass Effect 1 Pistols, with no content about the Mass Effect 2 Heavy Pistols, except the "See also:" link. We really should have different pages for ME and ME2 stuff that are completely different. I understand that planet and systems and all those can have ME and ME2 categories, but stuff that is only on ME and not in ME2 and vice versa should definitely be on different pages. Also, categories could be added too, not having "Category:Weapons" and "Category:Mass_Effect_2", but "Category:Mass_Effect_2_Weapons" or similar. JohnEdwa 20:47, February 9, 2010 (UTC) : This is a primary reason why many of the pages should be split. I found this VERY annoying when I went there, and even more so when I was updating links for ME2 users. I had created a weapons page etc, but I stopped since I decided to tackle the problem as a whole (I probably should have just added it, but I hate dealing with links...oh well). You can still have both Equipment(ME1) and Weapons(ME2) pages! Transclude both into the original page/redirects...this way ME2 users don't have to load ME1 content when jumping between pages (but can still look Weapons etc for a full list). This is what I still intend to do... or convince others to. ::Incoming links are the major issue, so opting not to deal with them is a non-starter. Transclusion doesn't really help the disambiguation problem, nor the category problem. (In fact, done carelessly, it may make the latter worse.) --DRY 21:16, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Looking at other wiki's? I understand that things are in a transitory period right now, but this isn't the first time that a site has had to integrate new information before. Look at the Fallout wiki. It does a great job of organizing all the Fallout games together in a way that feels pretty natural.Elamdri 22:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :It might be worth elucidating further for those of us who are not familiar with the site. Based on a quick glance, they appear to use generic disambiguation pages linking to specific pages for each applicable game. As mentioned above, that's potentially going to generate a fair amount of busy-work finding and fixing context-sensitive and anchor-specific links. I'm certain that there are valuable lessons to learn, but it would be helpful if they were spelled out rather than needing to be ferreted out. --DRY 22:41, February 4, 2010 (UTC) ::It would have been easier of course, if when this wikia was made, it had been designed that way from the start, afterall bioware made no secret that this was supposed to be a trilogy from the get-go. On the other hand, for things that are cross-game but minor, nothing *spoiling* about the main plot etc, I can understand keeping it together on one page. :::Goddamnit it keep forgetting to sign. Above unsigned comment was me, btw. AlexMcpherson 16:07, February 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::Hindsight is always 20-20 . On the other hand, the devil tends to be in the details, so simply knowing it's a trilogy does really solve all of the mechanical problems (or the content ones, e.g. Talk:Characters#Splitting pages). I also suspect that the Fallout folks have somewhat less overlapping content between games and I don't believe that they have other franchise elements like books and comics to worry about. (Full disclosure: I am only passingly familiar with the Fallout franchise.) --DRY 16:26, February 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::If you want a better example, look to Memory Alpha. I come from this site, and have contributed to it in the past. This is a Star Trek-wiki. They are compiling data from over 800 episodes and films. The site is very friendly to a new user. Each piece of information is given a source. For example, look at this article for Earth. The site is so useful that the producers of the latest Star Trek film used it as a reference.Throwback 22:13, February 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::My first impression from that article is: Holy link farm, Batman! It's not clear to me what characteristics from that page (or, more broadly, that wiki) would be useful if applied here. If there are specific techniques that you've used or seen which you believe will work well, I'm sure the community here would be pleased to adopt them. Keep in mind though that we probably have a whole lot less manpower than the Vault (and definitely vastly less than a Star Trek wiki). I'm personally in favour of leaving things together unless there's some fairly compelling reason to split them (e.g. Cluster:Hawking Eta and Cluster:Hawking Eta (ME2)) primarily because it is less work; secondarily, I think that with decent TOC headings, everything is pretty easy to find in any case even if the page is long. --DRY 22:56, February 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::DRY is absolutely correct in stating that the Fallout wiki has to contend with much less overlap. They don't have the books and comics to factor in, just the games, and the games are set in different time periods and in differing locations. You don't have about have the characters of Fallout 3, for example, also appearing in Fallout 2. About the only thing that is consistent there is organizations (BoS, the Enclave). So it's not really the best comparison/example. A better example would be the Dragon Age Wiki, which also has to deal with print sources, although they only have one game so far. And they do things the way we do! Neat! SpartHawg948 22:59, February 5, 2010 (UTC) Okay, So for Mass Effect, which is more than just a game series, but a proper franchise now (and I catagorise franchises as any series or story that is on multiple mediums... aka Books, Films and/or TV, Games, Comics, etc. BuffyTVS is a Franchise as it's TV and Comics. General story from the film is 'background' but the movie itself isn't within the whedon canon for that franchise. Other Examples of Franchises: *Star Wars: Films, Animated Tv Show(?), Video Games and those D-number thingios, D7 or is that just my trekkie background twisting something? :P and a lot of books. the Films, TV shows, Games and Books are all 'canon', inconsistencies generally follow the rule of newer retconning older detail. *Harry Potter: Book series and film series. Both are mutually exclusive sets of 'canon'. I don't consider film-versions-of-so-so as franchises, except the X-Men franchise. This, er... This is because they generally fail or something. Look no further than Daredevil and Elektra, one follows from the other but with a different hero, or heroine in that case. Both films had some good points, but was a general fail. So Mass Effect is joining the likes of the above first few examples, as a successful franchise. 2 Games, a third on the way, rumours of a film, (I do believe the films would need to be a bit longer than average length to fit relevant content) and three books, and now a comic too. So they should use the franchise organisation rules. Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha and Beta all follow this. Star trek is different, seperated into alpha and beta wikias because of one thing: the copyright holders or whoever don't count the books as the same 'canon' as the tv and films. Alpha therefore is 'canon' material: TV and film. Beta is the books and games and so on. Aside from that, there is no other seperation of same-content based on source. Ships of the so-so-number-one class from whatevergame is in the same list as ships of that class from thetothergame. As long as there is a clear seperation of information relevant to the plots of those sources, a single page per, 'item', is preferred. But we could make use of the 'article_(me1)' and so on, atleast for things like guides and so forth, where it should be delineated by game. For instance: Walkthrough *would then point to: Walkthrough_(ME1) Walkthrough_(ME2) -AlexMcpherson 22:37, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :Just a quick correction (still mulling the main points) you state the ME franchise consists of two games, with a third on the way, et cetera, et cetera. It's actually three games, with a fourth on the way. Just in the interests of accuracy. SpartHawg948 22:44, February 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Oh pish, *sarcasm* Semantics, my dear watson. */sarcasm* I forget what er... 'console', that other game was for... AlexMcpherson 22:49, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Hey, I'm just striving for accuracy. We can't work up solutions if we can't even frame the situation properly, can we? SpartHawg948 22:50, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :::: I would really like to avoid moving a plethora of pages to "(ME1)" equivalents. It's a lot of work to track down all of the broken anchor links (which won't show up as red links). It also potentially adds extra clicks in places where they aren't really necessary. The examples of franchises you've given all have a much larger pool of resources to pull on for any putative wiki maintenance. This is a fairly small community, with only a few dozen regular contributors — a number I expect will fall off again after a couple of months. --DRY 23:00, February 6, 2010 (UTC) Purpose This is a horifyingly long discussion that only seemed to sprout because one peson could not comprehend that mass effeect 1 and 2 exsist in the same universe, eithe that or i am confused and old ralok 07:35, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :No, that pretty much sums it up. And that one person now seems to have stormed off in a huff, vowing never to return to this wiki, so I'm not even sure why this discussion has continued. Sheer momentum, maybe? SpartHawg948 07:58, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, it's an unstoppable force, but I think I have an immovable object around here somewhere, let me just move this thing here out of the way so I can look for it- *strains* AAh this bloody thing wont shift. Sorry I can't get up to look for the immovable object. :P --AlexMcpherson 19:55, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :::The split notices and this thread do still serve one useful purpose, however: they discourage contributors from charging off and splitting things willy-nilly without stopping to think about it. I really don't want to have to clean up yet another poorly thought out and badly implemented split attempt…. --DRY 20:07, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::No arguments there! :) SpartHawg948 20:36, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Milky Way I think that something should be done. To be completely honest, I didn't think that this page had the ME2 material on it until I accidentally went to the bottom of the page. What threw me is that the Galaxy Image at the top of the page is for ME1 only. Maybe an Image of the ME2 Galaxy alongside it or integrated into it could work? Yes, it would work better down the page with the ME2 information, but to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing at the top of the page indicating that there is any ME2 "stuff" at the top of this page at all. (Of course I could be wrong and am willing to admit it.) Anyway, that's my two cents. Davehoekst 00:18, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :Not 100% sure what page you mean by "this page" (this is a forum page not attached to any article) but I'm assuming you mean the Milky Way page? If so, the ToC (Table of Contents) at the top of the page clearly states there is a Mass Effect 2 section, as do the ToCs on pretty much every page involved in the proposed split. SpartHawg948 01:17, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::The Milky Way page does need some work: the existing image should really be in the ME:1 section and a new ME:2 imagemap should be added. What with Real Life™ and all, I haven't even finished my first playthrough, so I'm not ideally placed to actually do the work…. --DRY 02:06, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::: SpartHawg948, you have are correct. For some reason I just didn't see it and remember thinking "Where's the ME2 Galaxy Map?" (Sorry about the mixup, by the way. I had no clue this was for the whole Wiki.) I'd try myself, but I'm on the 360 and it would result in me taking pictures of my TV. (Not exactly great quality...) Davehoekst 02:18, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::It's all good! We're here to help! And ditto on the 360/tv picture taking. Only I don't have a camera... :P SpartHawg948 02:41, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::But back to the Split topic... I think what we have going on currently on the Milky Way page is okay, but it might do with a little tweaking here and there. Can't say where exactly, it just seems... "off" to me. Davehoekst 03:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC) : Hmm i think i am going to try and make a composite map, i think it will take a while dont expect anything within a month ralok 03:14, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :: It is more useful to have a "compiled" galaxy map; however, some labels, categories and tags could be added so that both ME1 and ME2's locations could be distinguished. Lan EX 02:14, February 10, 2010 (UTC) ::: I suspect that it is going to be hard to come up with a format which is both clear and uncluttered, but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong. --DRY 02:53, February 10, 2010 (UTC) :I think the Milky Way page should be sectioned according to region (Terminus Systems, Skyllian Verge, etc.) rather than ME1 / ME2. There are some locations (like the Citadel) that feature in both games. Perhaps we could tag each system with an ME1/ME2 icon to visually identify which systems belong to which games. -- Karm1c 17:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::: Despite whatever the end result may or may not be, could we start with a simple image of the ME2 Galaxy Map, maybe? -Davehoekst 18:46, February 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::Yes, there's no problem with people trying something out. We (informally) recommend that they do so in their own sandbox and proposing it on the applicable talk page, to avoid any revert war unpleasantness. --DRY 21:32, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Proposals for Manual of Style Everyone should be thinking about how we're going to make this change, not whether or not a change should happen (it's going to on some level, either way). In the meantime, we need to start listing more rules and proposals or we're not going to get anywhere. At the very least this will help future guard newer content.-0333 22:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :We have a "how" for the time being: sections. The question here is whether or not to split pages, and if and only if so, how. --DRY 23:09, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Composite Pages This is a pretty basic one. *Content that has ME & ME2 that each have their own introductory/description should be split and be included on a Composite Page. This is true because transclusion allows for the page to remain exactly the same, listing the full content across games, but it at least gives each game their own pages to load/link-to rather than making users sift through every page on their own. If they're using ME2/ME3, they don't need to load the ME1 specific stuff- PERIOD. If they do a general search on the wiki, the content can still be gathered in a nice presentable manner using a composite page. Example Adept ... Overlap information ... //rare ... Overlap information ... //rare end Adept(ME) Adept for Mass Effect 2 //disambiguation ... ME1 Adept content ... end Adept(ME2) Adept for Mass Effect //disambiguation ... ME2 Adept content ... end Just a general concept, but you get the idea. This is the way we should've approached things from the very beginning. At the very least, it must be more apparent to users creating new sections/pages, when sectioning game-specific content is right vs wrong.-0333 22:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :And you accomplish what, exactly? The articles remain the same, but with twice the support pages. ::What it accomplishes is following the wiki manual of style. And by doing so you avoid forcing users to load irrelevant imformation on long pages. Support isn't as much of an issue as it seems...I could do it within the next few minutes and it wouldn't break much of anything--if anything. Everything would, for the most part, appear to be identical to both wikimedia and the users. Then there's also the issue mentioned above about Equipment and Weapons for ME2 vs ME etc. Equipment is something that ME2 can't even remotely relate to, but somebody may want to make a general page that shows info for both games. In either case, both should be separate, and disambiguation links would be pointing to the other places. That's the way that makes it easy to navigate AND maintain. That's the way it's supposed to be done.--0333 23:37, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Personally, if a visitor isn't bothered to look at the TOC, why should I (or you, or anybody else) be bothered in creating and maintaining so much redundancy? Most of the pages that are referred to on this post, are short with very little written content. --silverstrike 22:52, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Transclusions like these also tend to confuse casual editors ("Where's the text?"). In some ways I regret setting up the Cluster:List the way I did for exactly this reason. --DRY 23:09, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :::All it takes is a note, or a little link pointing to the page. Besides, each section retains its own edit links... Wikimedia pretty much does everything for you.--0333 23:37, February 15, 2010 (UTC)